I clicked the link and the first two replies were from (men, I presume but am not sure) saying "WHAT ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN?!"
sigh.

I know, I saw that. Yeah.

I blogged about this unforgivable display of exploitation [I never thought I'd see airbrushed perfection swapped for faux bruises] for commercial gain. They should be goddamned ashamed of themselves.

I find it to be really damn exploitative, too. I think that it would be one thing for them to SPONSOR a campaign against domestic violence and then have their logo in the corner because they're a sponsor. That, in fact, would probably be a good thing. But this is advertising their clothing, plain and simple, and it's fucked up.

I agree with Cara. It's one thing to show "faces of domestic violence" and to prove a point--that is should be stopped--by showing sponsorship for an anti-domestic violence organization, but I don't know, I get an icky feeling about it without that sponsorship. It seems like too much of a "fashion statement", and that disgusts me.

I am also curious to know whether or not these truly are "faces of domestic violence" (or if they are models made up to have bruises and scars--I'm not trying to be cynical, but maybe the fact that there's no mention of an anti-abuse organization makes me think twice about the photos). If they are real, I have to give these women a lot of credit for posing for the photos.

I can't even comment on this right now. I shouldn't have read the comments section. I really shouldn't have.

Well, I don't want to buy those clothes at all now.

As a survivor of domestic abuse I really don't know what to say on this. But...wow.

I think what bothers me is that not only are they selling clothes, such as some other commenters have said, but they're also perpetuating some stereotypes of domestic violence. I was abused for five years and he never left a mark on my face, he left it on my body and my soul. I know this isn't always the case, but domestic violence isn't always so visible and even when it is, many people refuse to see it. Even when he attacked me in public people just stood by and did nothing. Maybe that's what Benetton is trying to do with this campaign and then what? We can see from the comments section on that site that people just don't get it. You stick a woman's face on an ad and......I'm waiting for more than just another image. Where is the action?

Matching a purple sweater to a bruise? I'm disgusted.

I had hoped this would be a more positive example of how domestic violence does span color and economic lines. But it's not so much that at "look how daring we are! buy our clothes!" which I wasn't doing anyway so....

I'm looking forward to the day when our society doesn't glamorize or sexualize images of beaten women. Sad that I still have to look forward to that.

I agree with what everyone above has said. There are no resources for abused women to contact, no highlighting of what constitutes domestic violence and really everyone is a skinny model with the usual vacuous look-the bruises appear as an accessory.

There is a startling campaign on the public transit system in Toronto that is much better.

I agree with what everyone says, but I'd like to add something.
I noticed that the models in the ad shown here are women of color. From what I've read, women of color are less likely to seek help for domestic violence & shelters are less likely to cater to their needs. If these ads raise awareness about that, then maybe something positive can come out of this tasteless self-promotion.
I'd love to see a guerrilla art campaign come out of this--it would be awesome if someone defaced them wrote something like, "Don't buy a fucking sweater, give the money to a shelter."
& WtF is up with the men's responses? I don't want to trivialize violence against men by women, it DOES happen. Shelters should deal with the needs of male victims of abuse. But the fact is, women are more likely to be killed or raped by someone they know, men are more likely to be killed by strangers. It's like, anytime these guys see a campaign about women they get their testes in a knot b/c they're not the center of attention.

Those comments are scary.

Neither defending, nor arguing against, Benetton. I'll just try to explain their case. I find it an interesting one.

The Benetton company has, over the years, undertaken a series of ad campaigns which are 'edgy' in that they associate their brand/products with socially contentious issues. For example, they've featured AIDS patients dying, addressed racism with images of mothers breastfeeding infants of different races, and used death row inmates as models.

The company (and the family that owns/runs it) justify the use of such contraversial subject matter by saying it forces these subjects into the social narrative. Talking about racism, the death penalty, AIDS--they claim--goes a long way to removing any stigma and helps in the struggle against these injustices.

More cynical observes note that what Benetton is doing here is 'anti-advertising'. That is, Benetton's embrace of controversy cheaply buys them differentiation and brand recognition. No other company's do quite what Benetton does, though some of Calvin Klein's stuff comes close (Heroin chic)

What Benetton are up to is at least interesting. It certainly doesn't look like everyone's ideal way to address domestic violence, but I'm not clear its 'exploitative' in the sense that Calvin Klein's stuff is. Benetton are being explicit about the ad's message, where others are much more coy.

Oh. And the comments on the linked to site? Meh.

2/10. That whole thread stinks of fail.

Really disgusting, UNLESS: a portion of profits go towards a women's shelter or to promote awareness about domestic violence, or something like that. I note that the feministing post and the posts to which it links are silent in this regard. Am I supposed to infer that nothing goes to charity? Is that correct?

I disagree with most of the comments posted so far. I don't think the ads are selling sweaters so much as promoting awareness. I looked at the ads and I didn't think about buying the clothes. I think it's an effective campaign to promote awareness of domestic violence.
Gap's RED campaign was popular because it gave consumers an opportunity to buy t-shirts and make a donation towards AIDS relief efforts. I found that campaign a lot more appalling than this one.
I agree that it's disappointing that the ads promote stereotypes of domestic violence and don't promote a specific organization to help survivors. Domestic violence affects survivors more in ways that can't be seen. But it's an ad campaign, the whole point is to make it visual.
I don't think the ads are glamorous or sexualizing. These aren't skinny-mini models. I think the ads are attention-grabbing which is the point.
In short, could they have done a better job with the ads? Sure, you can always do better. But it's a start.

CONSUMERISM is NOT the answer to domestic violence!

(Just like the Gap's RED campaign and American Express are not the cure to AIDS in Africa)

I don't think an ad should try to both sell clothing AND raise awareness about domestic violence. Either you're 100% dedicated to raising the awareness, or don't even bother creating the ad. Featuring your clothes with the abused women just trivializes the issue of violence against women.

JennieTheGiraffe -

playing devil's advocate for a moment, are you therefore saying that commercial organizations have no social obligation whatsoever? With respect to domestic violence, the environment, or social justice?

What about the argument that we all live lives rich with complex obligations - to family, friends, to our communities, societies and so forth. And that these interlinked obligations make it simply impractical to dedicate oneself 100% to anything.

Oh. And I'll agree with and amplify your openning. Consumerism is not the answer to anything.

"Featuring your clothes with the abused women just trivializes the issue of violence against women."
So are they supposed to be naked? Wearing another brand of clothing?
I think the benefit of an ad campaign like this is that it reaches an audience that doesn't read feministing or know about domestic violence. Suppose a young woman sees this ad in Vogue. It gets to her on a level that other ways of trying to reach her haven't and she looks up a domestic violence organization to volunteer or donate a few bucks. That whole scenario shouldn't have a chance to play out because Benetton is either with us or against us? There should be some way to get a win-win.

Benetton does have a long history of WTF print advertising -- as in "WTF does this picture have to do with clothing?" "WTF are they trying to say?" The ads typically don't proclaim a particular POV -- "Violence is bad. Call this number to help." "Racism is bad. Don't do racism." The images are bold and clear, and do a good job of getting people talking. it seems that has been Benetton's strategy since the 1980s, and this campaign looks no different. I may have a different opinion if these three ads were way out of character for Benetton, but in a way, I like them for showing abuse survivors as people -- yes, even sweater-wearing people -- and not just victims.

Paul, not to speak for JennieTheGirafee, but I don't think she is saying corporations have no social responsibilities at all. I think what she is saying is that you can't have a dual advertising/ awareness raising campaign because one (the advertising) will outweigh the other. I agree with the other posters- there is no website/link associated with the ads to donate or raise awareness. This is definately an ad campaign first and foremost which detracts from the any "awareness raising" potential. As JTG noted, consumerism is NOT the way to save the world. Even the Gap's RED campaign, faulty though it is, donates a specific amount per sale to charity. These ads make no mention of such. To me it seems like UCOB is merely trying to ride Gap's consumerism-as-social-work campaign without actually having to do anything like donate money or actually put effort (beyond airbrushing) into awareness raising. I also concur with Xana, not all abusers leave marks, especially on the face. People really need to understand you don't actually have to have a black eye to be in an abusive relationship. A more effective, real campaign might have 10 women with no marks and tell the viewer "3 of these woman are surving abuse" i.e. they look like everyone else (you), with a link to learn more about identification, prevention, escape, healing and donation. I'm with everyone else and think that this is a cheap, nasty way to sell clothes and look like a socially concious corporation without having to do anything different.

Paul G. Brown and
Rabbit_Fiasco

Points well taken! Corporations do have social obligations. And I agree that this ad at least does create some kind of awareness for people who have little to no idea about the issue.

I think I will always struggle with ads like this because they feel inheriently "wrong" to me but I find it hard to describe WHY.

oh...Ew.
-What the fuck is up with the comments?
-I am strangely outraged by the shimmer makeup on the smaller girl's black eye. I don't know why, but it OFFENDS me.
-I am skeptical of the motivation for this ad campaign. Rampageously skeptical.
-Regardless of the motivation behind the campaign, I resent to hell and back one of the main pret a porter companies, whose campaigns have helped focus issues of body image as the heralds of self esteem among women as being particularly empowering and helpful WHILE MAINTAINING THOSE IMAGES. These are young, pretty, wistfully 'precious moments' sad faced women of colour.
Guess what... caucasian women, men, boys, fat girls, skinny girls, ugly girls, pretty girls get hit and hurt and wounded all the time. Some of them get mad. Some of them get even. Most of them don't coordinate their black eyes with thir sweaters. Most abusers don't LEAVE visible marks.

This promotes a false plastic image of domestic abuse. It's not just a narrow focus, it's a plastic and egregiously inaccurate one also.

I also worry about the fetishization and erosion of the shock value of a human being in pain. It trivializes the phenomenon to use it to sell clothing...because that's all that this ad actually 100% accomplishes. And that is contemptible to me.

JTG, I hear you and I'm frequently concerned by the possibility that an important subject is being exploited for commercial gain.
However, I think that Gap's RED campaign is arguably far more exploitive than this. The money that the RED campaign raised for AIDS in Africa is miniscule compared to the positive press the received in exchange. Sure, it's better that they donated money than not but when they're selling $60 jeans that cost $.29 to make in the name of AIDS, the least they can do is donate a few bucks, IMHO.

Regardless of whatever the RED Campaign did or did not do appropriately, we are looking at a larger issue with this campaign. First of all, United Colors of Benetton is an upper-level, designer store. THese types of stores typically market their product to upper class, white Americans. Now, on their ads, they are posting images of solely Latino women and titling their campaign "colors of Domestic Violence." To me this sends to messages: firstly, that they wish to spread awareness of domestic violence and secondly that they are attempting to typecast Latino women as the sole group affected by domestic violence. The typical rich, white girl would go into a store like this and fawn over the idea that she can exercise her favorite hobby, shopping, and help to "bring awareness" to a difficult and controversial topic. However, we all know that Latinos are definitely not the only demographic affected by domestic violence. Women of all colors , socioeconomic classes, races, and beliefs are affected to various degrees and in various ways by domestic violence. When I was younger and living in my hometown, a young women, from an upper middle-class family, her father was a doctor and her mother owned her own shop, was murdered by her boyfriend who had repeatedly beaten and injured her. This is a classic example of domestic violence that this campaign is either denying or shadowing through this message. Whatever the Gap campaign did wrong, it did bring positive awareness to the HIV/AIDS issue in Africa for the most part. This campaign fails to bring about any positive themes, instead deepening racial divide on issues such as Domestic violence, and segregating an ethnic group that already faces problems in the US without the help of the United Colors of Benetton.

Regardless of whatever the RED Campaign did or did not do appropriately, we are looking at a larger issue with this campaign. First of all, United Colors of Benetton is an upper-level, designer store. THese types of stores typically market their product to upper class, white Americans. Now, on their ads, they are posting images of solely Latino women and titling their campaign "colors of Domestic Violence." To me this sends to messages: firstly, that they wish to spread awareness of domestic violence and secondly that they are attempting to typecast Latino women as the sole group affected by domestic violence. The typical rich, white girl would go into a store like this and fawn over the idea that she can exercise her favorite hobby, shopping, and help to "bring awareness" to a difficult and controversial topic. However, we all know that Latinos are definitely not the only demographic affected by domestic violence. Women of all colors , socioeconomic classes, races, and beliefs are affected to various degrees and in various ways by domestic violence. When I was younger and living in my hometown, a young women, from an upper middle-class family, her father was a doctor and her mother owned her own shop, was murdered by her boyfriend who had repeatedly beaten and injured her. This is a classic example of domestic violence that this campaign is either denying or shadowing through this message. Whatever the Gap campaign did wrong, it did bring positive awareness to the HIV/AIDS issue in Africa for the most part. This campaign fails to bring about any positive themes, instead deepening racial divide on issues such as Domestic violence, and segregating an ethnic group that already faces problems in the US without the help of the United Colors of Benetton.

I had a very hard time identifying myself as a victim of abuse. Even after five years of being frightened and/or angry, I had a very hard time. I still do.

Why?

Because only once in the five years we were married and the two years we dated did he ever leave a mark. And it certainly wasn't on my face. And because I didn't look like the "right" kind of battered wife, I didn't feel like I could claim the title. Whatever was happening to me obviously wasn't what was happening to these women. Wasn't as bad. Wasn't as serious.

It's irresponsible to abused and frightened women everywhere to promote the idea that abused women all have these types of bruises to show. If I had, maybe I would have gotten out sooner. To me, it's just as bad as promoting the idea that violent stranger rape is the only kind.

Corporations do have social obligations.

I agree with this premise.
What I personally object to is when corporations take this truth and use it to pat themselves on the back with ads that say, "You should buy our products, because we're socially responsible!"

And we can cure breast cancer by eating yogurt and buying pink teddy bears. [/sarcasm]

In my more cynical moments I speculate that no one ever does anything truly selfless; whether they do it for recognition, reward, or because it makes them "feel good about themselves," they're still ultimately deriving some form of personal benefit from the act.

But somehow it's just a little more galling when a massive, wealthy corporation donates a tiny fraction of their profits to some cause or another, and then bases an (million-dollar?) ad campaign around it, with the expectation that consumers will "reward" their supposed "philanthropy" by buying more of their product (and likely garnering more in profits than was donated in the first place.)

I'd be more impressed if they took the money they spent on these ads and donated it all to some charity committed to helping victims of DV, or just by funding a straight-up DV-Awareness ad campaign.
But no--they had to sell us some of their crap, besides.

God, I hate the media. *fetch axe, commence grinding*

Oh, and while I've got my axe out, let's not overlook the implication that only WoC are victims of DV. Patently untrue, and the flipside--that only MoC perpetrate said violence--is also implicit and reinforces a very popular and longstanding racist premise, i.e. "those brown folks are more savage/violent and less civilized/intelligent than we are."

No fucking thank you, Benetton.
You can keep your crappy sweaters.

I'm sure this has been remarked on elsewhere, but I feel that generally, UCOB sells a "multi-ethnic chic" to upper middle class caucasian people who want to think of themselves as "openminded" "diverse" and "multi cultural". This United Colors of Domestic Violence "campaign" (is it a campaign if you don't actually DO anything other than print ads with beat-up looking models wearing your clothes??) just sells women of color as victims to helped by upper class caucasian consumerism. Thoughts?

Vervain and Nazrafel bring up great points. I completely agree.

As to the commenters saying these ads might bring awareness... I really don't think they create any awareness or any encouragement to the people who see them. I did some searching and I cannot even find any information that any money will be donated to charities/groups devoted to domestic violence.

"Suppose a young woman sees this ad in Vogue. It gets to her on a level that other ways of trying to reach her haven't and she looks up a domestic violence organization to volunteer or donate a few bucks." I wish this were the case. But I still don't see why exploitative images created through the male gaze (read Mulvey) of beaten WoC are in any way going to reach the shoppers that Benetton attracts. I agree with Vervain that those images only further perpetuate stereotypes of "savage brown people".

This survivor of domestic violence sure as hell isn't supporting Benetton in this ad campaign. Profit for gain...that's what it's all about in a consumer culture.

I actually thought that the Gap Red campaign was really hypocritical. The Gap is notorious for its use of sweatshops, No Logo has a really good expose if you want specifics. So you're going to give money to charity that's earned from products that were made in a sweatshop?
It pissed me off that so many celebrities got behind the campaign--they mean well but I don't think they have an analytical cell in their body.

i just went through benetton's website, hoping to find some kind of information about how this ad campaign fit into larger efforts or fundraising or new focus for corporate giving...and nada. i did find this gallery of past campaigns though:
http://press.benettongroup.com/ben_en/about/campaigns/list/

i hate marketing. such a slimy, sleazy industry.

aaannnd the link i just posted is in the original feministing post. d'oh.

The comments on that site were the limit...
This is in such bad taste....

Liz Claiborne does it better.

Oh, that's nice. Because god knows domestic violence victims are never fat. *end snark*
Seriously, though, I do believe this is cheapening an oft-fatal, mentally and physically, situation, and using it to advertise your clothes is deplorable. Now, if they were giving the proceeds to a domestic violence shelter, I could see the reasoning behind this. But that doesn't appear to be the case, so... as to the first 2 comments on the link, I mean, seriously?! Do these people have nothing better to do than leave inane comments about clothes? Where'd they find the link?!

Anna Phor, thanks for the link!

I actually talked about Benneton's use of 'controversial' topics in its ads with someone not long ago--my argument was that if they want to run magazine spreads to raise awareness of these issues, fine, but they need to take their name off it. When the name of their corporation is on it, it's an advertisement for their corporation, regardless of what's in the image--the bottom line is still their name, logo, and product. If they want to simply spread awareness, they can remove their corporation's name and let the power of the image & message speak for itself.

If they're so committed, rather than advertising their product, they could start a charity (and even keep the corporate name somewhere in the charity's name if they really want) and advertise that. Then when they've spread the awareness they want to spread and gotten people willing to act on the issue, there's an action being encouraged beyond buying sweaters.

"The Benetton company has, over the years, undertaken a series of ad campaigns which are 'edgy' in that they associate their brand/products with socially contentious issues. For example, they've featured AIDS patients dying, addressed racism with images of mothers breastfeeding infants of different races, and used death row inmates as models."

BTW, does this remind anyone else of that recent Cape Times ad campaign?

http://www.cherryflava.com/cherryflava/2007/04/the_day_before.html

Just want to throw another "this is completely disgusting and in extremely poor taste" onto the pile. In full agreement with cinnamon.mcbadger that they should goddamned ashamed of themselves.

This campaign is just horrid.

FAKE. Those ads were photoshopped by someone. My guess would be an art school project?

The Benetton website lists all of its advertisement campaigns and the rationale behind them. Their current campaign has monkeys, not abuse victims.

http://press.benettongroup.com/ben_en/about/campaigns/history/

I just got off the phone with the PR person at Benetton, Anissa Nouhi.

She is adamant: this is NOT a Benetton ad. The HQ in Italy is investigating and all their ads are done internally, not by McCann.

Here's my post with notes from speaking to her.

I just got off the phone with the PR person at Benetton, Anissa Nouhi.

She is adamant: this is NOT a Benetton ad. The HQ in Italy is investigating and all their ads are done internally, not by McCann.

Here's my post with notes from speaking to her.

I just got off the phone with the PR person at Benetton, Anissa Nouhi.

She is adamant: this is NOT a Benetton ad. The HQ in Italy is investigating and all their ads are done internally, not by McCann.

Here's my post with notes from speaking to her.

Oy so sorry for the duplicate!! got stuck in the circular "connecting to..." cycle.

Thank you for doing the research, Jill! I had a feeling something was odd witht this-- the photos that the ads are made from (in terms of clothes, hairstyles, etc.) don't look current at all, which seemed sketchy.

I was angry when I saw the ads, though, too-- probably doing research before getting so outraged would be a good idea.

Elzbieta - I know what you mean about the clothes! That's the really funny thing. I went to college in 80-84 in DC and remember when the first Benetton opened, in Georgetown. And the styles then were almost exaclty like that turtleneck - VERY 80s. but then I thought, eh, I'm so old now, that what's old is new! So I kind of dismissed it, but that's so funny you mention the clothes as a tipoff because I did think they weren't quite what I would have expected in a new campaign. lol Thanks. Can't wait to find out who really is behind this!!